Deliverable Action A2

LIFE Climate Change Mitigation

Xiloyannis C., Dichio B., Montanaro G.,

Università degli Studi della Basilicata

Dip. Culture Europee e del Mediterraneo:

Architettura, Ambiente, Patrimoni Culturali (DiCEM) - ITALY

LIFE CLIMATREE

(LIFE14 CCM/GR/ 000635)

“A novel approach for accounting and monitoring carbon sequestration

of tree crops and their potential as carbon sink areas”

Coordinated by Prof. K. Bithas

PANTEION UNIVERSITY – UEHR

Institute of Urban Environment & Human Resources (UEHR)

April, 2016

Deliverable Action A2:

Adjustment of the LULUCF methodology for a better accounting

of mitigation cultural practices of agro-ecosystem

A2 Action DiCEM / Università degli Studi della Basilicata – Italy

LIFE CLIMATREE (LIFE14 CCM/GR/ 000635)

1 of 34

Table of Contents

Summary 2

1. Introduction 3

2. View of the current LULUCF legislation and reporting options 5

3. Stepwise methodology for estimating emissions and

removals from Cropland management (CM) category 8

3.1. STEP 1 - CM definition 8

3.2. STEP 2 - Land identification 8

3.2.1 Identifying lands subjected to CM activities 10

3.3. STEP 3 - Organic/mineral soils 11

3.4. STEP 4 - Select Tier and methods 11

4. Carbon pools: definitions and stock changes measurements 13

4.1. Biomass 14

Tier 1 14

Tier 2 15

Tier 3 16

4.2. Dead organic matter 16

Tier 1 17

Tier 2 and 3 17

4.3. Soil carbon 18

Tier 1 18

Tier 2 19

Tier 3 19

5. Conclusions 20

6. References 21

7. Annexes 23

8. List of tables and figures 24

Tables 24

Figures 28



2 of 34

Summary

This report summarizes current methodology for monitoring and

accounting of GHG emissions for the AFOLU sector with a focus on tree crops

which are included in Cropland category. Key documents were: the Decision

529/2013 of the European Commission, and the technical Guidelines for

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories issued during 2006 by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 2013 Revised

Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto

Protocol issued in the 2014.

In places, a red text highlights possible improvements/adjustments of current

methodology with the aim to shed the light on potential of tree crops category to

serve as carbon sink. Particularly, the following points are suggested:

to consider the perennial tree crops as key category rather than sub-

category of the Crop Management one;

preliminarily identification of additional criteria for a higher resolution of

the emissions/removals tailored on tree crops such as

evergreen/deciduous, irrigated/not-irrigated, climatic zones;

improvement of default biomass factors to be used under Tier 1

estimation that possibly help to discriminate for different IPCC

ecoregions;

field periodic measurements for above-ground biomass monitoring.

Higher Tier methodology is proposed, based on the use of easy

implementable models for carbon turnover in soil.

Annexed to the report a summary1 of a manuscript titled “Carbon budget in a

Mediterranean peach orchard under different management practices” The

manuscript provides annual data on gain-loss carbon fluxes along with data on

carbon sequestration in above- below-ground biomass during orchard lifetime.

This paper would be a supporting documents showing the potential of tree crops

to serve as carbon sink.

1 The paper has submitted to a Journal, now it is under revision, the full paper will be

annexed as soon as i twill be published.



3 of 34

1. Introduction

The European Union (EU), as a party to the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), must submit annually the

greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories for emissions and removals within the area

covered by its Member States (MS) (i.e. domestic emissions taking place within

its territory). The inventories must cover emissions and removals from the

following sectors: Energy, Industrial Processes and Product Use, Agriculture,

Land-Use Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), Other. In general,

estimations of GHGs must follow the typical reporting principles of transparency,

accuracy, consistency, completeness and comparability (TACCC).

Since 1998, the Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed to use the Guidelines

provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for

estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals. In that context, reporting of

LULUCF covers the following categories: forest land, cropland, grassland,

wetland, settlements and other lands. According to the IPCC definition, fruit tree

orchards which are the subject of the LIFE14 CLIMATREE Project, are included

in cropland:

“Cropland includes all annual and perennial crops as well as temporary fallow

land (i.e., land set at rest for one or several years before being cultivated again).

Annual crops include cereals, oils seeds, vegetables, root crops and forages.

Perennial crops include trees and shrubs, in combination with herbaceous crops

(e.g., agroforestry) or as orchards, vineyards and plantations such as cocoa,

coffee, tea, oil palm, coconut, rubber trees, and bananas, except where these

lands meet the criteria for categorisation as Forest Land. Arable land which is

normally used for cultivation of annual crops but which is temporarily used for

forage crops or grazing as part of an annual crop-pasture rotation (mixed

system) is included under cropland.”

The Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006)

(thereafter 2006 IPCC Guidelines) are aware about the evidence that “perennial

woody vegetation in orchards, vineyards, and agroforestry systems can store

significant carbon in long-lived biomass, the amount depending on species type,

density, growth rates, and harvesting and pruning practices. Carbon stocks in

soils can be significant and changes in stocks can occur in conjunction with

most management practices, including crop type and rotation, tillage, drainage,

residue management and organic amendments.”. However, this is not reflected

in available data on GHG inventories. Based on the latest annual EU GHG



4 of 34

inventory (1990–2013) and inventory report (EEA, 2015) the sector LULUCF is

a net carbon (C) sink (higher removals by sinks than emissions from sources)

only because of the CO2 sink capacity of the Forest land category (Fig. 1).

Tree crops ecosystems have a significant potential to be a net sink for

atmospheric carbon as discussed in the attached Annex. Hence it appears that

although a rigorous accounting of the C fluxes of the current LULUCF sector is

of high significance the standard accounting methods fail to approximate the

relevant characteristics of fruit tree orchards to be a net sink too (Montanaro et

al., 2012; Zanotelli, et al., 2014). Although the recent revision of the IPCC

methods and good practice guidance arising from the Kyoto Protocol (IPCC,

2014), certain aspects of orchards and vineyards cultivation relevant to climate

change mitigation and adaptation strategy (e.g. carbon removal and storage in

soil and woody biomass) are rarely reported in the literature under UNFCCC

accounting protocols (Huffman et al., 2015). This is likely because orchards do

not conform to the forest definition causing in most cases orchard category to be

listed under others (e.g. croplands, grasslands) and in turn C stored in trees

biomass (or orchard soil) not accounted (Arets et al., 2014). Similarly, variations

of C pools (e.g. soil organic carbon and crop biomass) as result of land use

change or differentiated management are often not accounted for assessing

product life cycle greenhouse gas emissions due to limited information existing

and to ill accounting procedures (PAS 2050, 2008; Goglio et al., 2015).

The GHG reporting and accounting exercises have been amended by the Kyoto

Protocol for the first (2008-2012) and second (2013-2020) commitment period,

and in turn the EC built up a more robust common accounting, monitoring and

reporting rules (see Decision 529/2013) (EC, 2013). The present report,

developed within the A2 Action of the LIFE14 CLIMATREE “Adjustment of the

LULUCF methodology for a better accounting of mitigation cultural practices of

agro-ecosystem” after a view of the current LULUCF legislation package will

preliminary provide possible proposals for its improvement. Suggestions will be

based also on implementation foreseen within the LIFE14 CLIMATREE toward

an improved reporting (and accounting)2 of fruit tree orchards contribution within

the LULUCF to offset GHGs. This would be pivotal for the potential inclusion of

the LULUCF sector in the EU GHG emission reduction targets by 2020

2 Reporting relates to the inclusion of GHG estimates in a GHG inventory; Accounting

refers to the use of the reported data within a processes determining the contribution of a specific sector to the achievements of a specific target, for example in terms of CO2eq emissions.



5 of 34

accounting period, providing supporting information for monitoring and reporting

emissions and removals associated with tree crops.

In addition, we preliminarily provide some integrative measures that can be

implemented with the aim to contribute to the adjustment of the LULUCF GHG

accounting methodologies.

Organic soils (>12-20% soil organic carbon) are not considered in this report.

2. View of the current LULUCF legislation and reporting

options

In order to encounter the targeted reduction of GHG emissions (i.e. 20% below

the 1990 emissions by 2020), the EU issued the Decision 529/2013 (EC, 2013)

aimed at formally include the activities of the LULUCF sector within the

accounting GHG emissions for all member states (MS), modifying the criteria of

accounting from being area-based to activity-based.

Each MS shall prepare and maintain accounts related to all emissions and

removals resulting from the activities on their territory falling within the following

categories:

(a) afforestation;

(b) reforestation;

(c) deforestation;

(d) forest management.

The Decision 529/2013 (EC, 2013) also focuses the second commitment period

(2013-2020) under the Kyoto Protocol and establishes as mandatory a series of

new land activities. That is, for the accounting periods beginning on 1 January

2021, and thereafter (see Art. 3, Decision 529/2013) “Member States shall

prepare and maintain annual accounts that accurately reflect all emissions and

removals resulting from the activities on their territory falling within the following

categories:

(a) cropland management;

(b) grazing land management;”.



6 of 34

To encourage MS toward the inclusion of such new categories, from 2016 to

2018, MS shall report (i) on the systems in place and being developed to

estimate emissions and removals from cropland management (CM) and (ii) on

how these systems are in accordance with IPCC methodologies (see below).

According to the definitions reported in the Decision 529/2013 (EC, 2013),

“‘cropland management’ means any activity resulting from a system of

practices applicable to land on which agricultural crops are grown…”

which is relevant for fruit tree crops when they do not meet the definition of

forest3. However, The 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good

Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (KP Supplement) (IPCC,

2014) states that croplands such as vineyards and orchards that meet the

definition of forest can be included under CM. The definition of CM is similar to

the Cropland definition reported in in 2006 IPCC Guidelines which “includes all

annual and perennial crops as well as temporary fallow land” (see Chapter 5,

Volume 4).

Apart of certain tree crops whose plantations may conform to forest (e.g. old

olive groves) and therefore are accountable under CM or Forestry Management

categories, the cropland category is a relatively wide group of activities that do

not allow to separately account for perennial crops. In that respect, considering

that sustainable agricultural ecosystems (including orchards) have the potential

to sequester carbon in various carbon pools (biomass, dead organic matter, soil)

at rates similar or even higher than that of forests (Wu et al., 2012; Zanotelli et

al., 2013; Montanaro et al., in revision), the significance of tree crops in terms of

contribution to GHG emissions/removals should be revised. Hence it could be

suggested to consider the perennial tree crops as key category as for forestry

management. Having tree crops as key category (rather than sub-category of

the CM one) may boost MS to implement their accounting procedures toward a

better definition of the contribution of tree crops to national GHG inventories.

Within the widening of categories established by the Decision 529/2013

(EC, 2013), the Project CLIMATREE will support the definition of emissions

and removals resulting from the activities falling within the tree crops

3 From Decision 529/2013, FOREST means an area of land defined by the minimum

values for area size (0.01-0.5 ha), tree crown cover (10-30%), and potential tree height

at maturity (2-5 m), as specified for each Member State in Annex V; ‘crown cover’

means the proportion (%) of a fixed area that is covered by the vertical projection of

the perimeter of tree crowns.



7 of 34

which are accountable under cropland management categories. Hopefully

this would be useful for the introduction of a specific key category

dedicated to tree crops.

Urban trees category

According to the Art. 3(3) of Decision 529/2013 (EC, 2013), MS could account

on a voluntary base for Revegetation (RV) activity. Revegetation is defined as

any direct human-induced activity intended to increase the carbon stock

of any site that covers a minimum area of 0.05 hectares, through the

proliferation of vegetation, where that activity does not constitute afforestation or

reforestation. The option to account for RV could be relevant for fruit tree crops

in case MS choose cropland management definition that leave out some of the

management systems or sub-categories of land-uses with woody biomass, such

as coppices, orchards, Christmas tree plantations, tree nurseries and define

them as RV (Weiss et al 2015).

Interestingly, MS could account for CO2 removals in living and dead biomass

inferred from increment of growing C stock in urban areas where overgrown

roadsides, urban trees, green areas, park and other green infrastructures

serve as CO2 sink. In that case, in settlements-remaining-settlements sub-

category. Despite its potential relevance for the LULUCF sector, reporting and

accounting for such urban trees is behind the scope of LIFE14 CLIMATREE and

therefore not considered in the A2 Action and in the present report.



8 of 34

3. Stepwise methodology for estimating emissions and

removals from Cropland management (CM) category

According with the Decision 529/2013 (EC, 2013) and with guidance provided in

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National

Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006 and 2014), MS should prepare and

maintain their emissions and removals inventories from the LULUCF ensuring

transparency, accuracy, consistency, completeness and comparability of

information.

The IPCC has recently reviewed the methods for estimation, measurement,

monitoring and reporting of emissions and removals for the various categories

including CM, see Chapter 2, § 2.9 in 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods

and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (IPCC, 2014). In

this section of the present report we summarise the steps suggested by IPCC as

good practice to apply for estimating emissions and removals from CM category.

3.1. STEP 1 - CM definition The definition of CM is of course of basic relevance, this will be used

consistently over time. As regard perennial tree crops such as vineyards,

orchards, olive groves and other plantations, are included in CM category. In

cases tree crops meet the forest definition (see above) they can be included

under CM as well, however it is recommended to avoid double counting of these

tree crops under both CM and forestry management categories (IPCC, 2014).

3.2. STEP 2 - Land identification Chapter 3, Vol. 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (IPCC, 2006) provides guidance

on using various types of data to be collected for the representation of land-use

categories (and their changes) based on the evidence that countries use various

methods to obtain data, including annual census, periodic surveys and remote

sensing. Countries may use a mix of Approaches for different regions over time,

these approaches briefly are:

Approach 1 identifies the total area for each individual land-use category within

a country, but does not provide detailed information on the nature of conversions

between land uses. See 2.2.4.1 section of IPCC (2014) for further details.

Approach 2 introduces tracking of conversions between land-use categories,

but is not spatially explicit therefore does not allow to track conversions over

time for individual lands. See 2.2.4.2 section of IPCC (2014) for further details.



9 of 34

Approach 3 extends the information available in Approach 2, it is characterized

by spatially-explicit observations of land-use categories and land-use

conversions and thus enables tracking of conversions over time of individual

lands. See 2.2.4.3 section of IPCC (2014) for further details.

To avoid double counting of land areas and ensure completeness in land

identification and consistency in reporting, the two following reporting methods

have been proposed by the 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good

Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol:

Method 1 uses a spatially-referenced approach that delineates the geographic

boundaries that contain multiple land units subject to various activities. The

geographic boundaries can be defined using georeferenced legal,

administrative, or ecosystem boundaries.

Information about activities within these areas is derived from (grid-based or

other) sampling techniques using remote sensing or ground-based data or from

administrative statistics, although the location of each land unit within these

geographic areas may not be known.

Method 2 is based on the spatially-explicit and complete geographical

identification of all land units subject to the various categories.

The Table 1 (IPCC, 2014) describes the three land-identification Approaches

and relations between Approaches and Reporting Methods



10 of 34

3.2.1 Identifying lands subjected to CM activities The 2.9.3 section of the IPCC (2014) guidelines “Choice of methods for

identifying lands subject to Cropland Management activities” provides general

guidance on consistent representation of lands recalling information provided in

Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines with additional guidance about

identification of lands subject to CM. In general, it is suggested to continuously

follow the management of land that is subject to CM by tracking land subject to

CM from the base line year (1990) until the end of the commitment period(s).

However, MS could develop statistical sampling techniques (see Annex 3A.3,

Chapter 3, Vol. 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). In this regard, it is

recommended to identify criteria that could be used to set up a stratified

sampling scheme. For tree crops, in addition to general stratification criteria (e.g.

climate and soil type, management practices) the following criteria could be

suggested:

- degree of soil disturbance (e.g. tillage frequency and intensity)

- level of input of crop biomass or organic amendment

- temporary use for livestock grazing

- evergreen/deciduous (accounting separately for evergreen such as olives,

oranges and lemons and deciduous tree crops may help to collect more detailed



11 of 34

data on removals/emissions because evergreen have a year round activity that

may impact C fluxes (see Annex to this report).

- irrigated/not-irrigated. The water availability greatly impact gas exchanges of

plants and in turn the potential of carbon sequestration. This may be relevant for

certain tree crops (e.g. traditional olive groves) which are routinely rainfed.

Hence a stratum that take into consideration this aspect would improve

calculations.

- climate zones.

3.3. STEP 3 - Organic/mineral soils At this stage two main subcategories are identified based on texture and SOC

content namely in mineral soils and organic soils. Soils are classified in order

to apply reference C stocks and stock change factors for estimation of soil C

stock change, roughly a soil is considered organic when its SOC is higher than

12-20% by weight, for further details on soils classifications see Annex 3A.5,

Chapter 3, Vol. 4 in IPCC (2006). Organic soils are usually found in wetlands or

have been drained and converted to other land-use types (e.g., Forest Land,

Cropland, Grassland, Settlements) (IPCC, 2006), thus under Mediterranean

conditions organic soils are reasonably not common.

3.4. STEP 4 - Select Tier and methods Within the Volume 4 of the of the IPCC guidelines for National GHG Inventories

which devoted to Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use sector (AFOLU)

(IPCC, 2006), the Chapter 5-Cropland provides a tiered methodology for

estimating and reporting greenhouse gas emissions from croplands. The three

hierarchical Tiers of methods range from default emission factors and simple

equations to the use of country-specific data and models to accommodate

national circumstances. The accuracy of these different methodologies varies,

usually Tier 2 and 3 are referred as “higher tier”, accuracy level could be

visualised as follow:

According to IPCC (2006), if needed, a combination of Tiers can be used, e.g.,

Tier 2 can be used for biomass and Tier 1 for soil carbon. The following Box 1.1

reports the concepts of the three tiered approach suggested for the AFOLU

sector (see Chapter 1, Vol. 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse

Gas Inventories). The IPCC (2014) provides a general decision tree for selecting

the appropriate Tier to be adopted (Fig. 3), while specific decision tree related to

CM and specific C pool are presented in forthcoming sections.



12 of 34

BOX 1.1 – General description of the three Tiers of methods for accounting the

emissions/removals of GHG in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

sector (AFOLU) sector. Redrawn from Chapter 1, Vol. 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines

for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.



13 of 34

4. Carbon pools: definitions and stock changes

measurements The Decision 529/2013 (EC, 2013) defined the ‘carbon pool’ as a

biogeochemical feature or system of a MS territory within which carbon is

stored. The relevant carbon pools for the cropland category are splitted as

follow:

Here below, we provide details on current IPCC accounting methodologies at

the various tiers (Vol.4, Chapter 5, 2006 IPCC Guidelines) for the

removals/emissions of GHG related to carbon changes of that aforementioned C

pools.

In the present report we focus the changes in carbon stocks in Cropland

Remaining Cropland which are croplands that have not undergone any land use

change for a period of at least 20 years as a default period. That changes in

carbon stock are estimated using the following Equation 2.3 (Vol.4, Chapter 2,

2006 IPCC Guidelines):

Where:

ΔCLUi = carbon stock changes for a stratum of a land-use category

Subscripts denote the following carbon pools: AB = above-ground biomass BB = below-ground biomass DW = deadwood



14 of 34

LI = litter SO = soils HWP = harvested wood products

According to IPCC (2014), for perennial crops (e.g. trees, shelterbelts and

orchards), carbon stock changes may not be estimated for all pools shown in

Equation 2.3 but MS should provide verifiable information that these carbon

stocks are not decreasing.

4.1. Biomass According to 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Chapter, 5, vol. 4, section 5.2.1) changes in

carbon in cropland remaining in the same land-use category (ΔCB) may be

estimated from either (a) annual rates of biomass gain and loss (Chapter 2,

Equation 2.7) or (b) carbon stocks at two points in time (Chapter 2,

Equation 2.8) depending also in Tier adopted. Figure 4 show the decision tree

for the estimation of carbon changes in biomass.

Tier 1 The default method is to multiply the area of perennial woody cropland by a net

estimate of biomass accumulation from growth and subtract losses (harvest,

gathering or disturbance) (Eq. 2.7 in Chapter 2, Vol. 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines):

Where:

ΔCB = annual change in carbon stocks in biomass for each land sub-

category, considering the total area, tonnes C yr-1

ΔCG = annual increase in carbon stocks due to biomass growth for each

land sub-category, considering the total area, tonnes C yr-1

ΔCL = annual decrease in carbon stocks due to biomass loss for each

land sub-category, considering the total area, tonnes C yr-1

This Tier 1 method works under several assumptions, particularly it assumes

that no below-ground biomass accumulation do occur, default values for below-

ground biomass for agricultural systems are not available. Under Tier 1, default

factors for biomass accumulation are reported in Table 2 redrawn from Chapter

5, Vol. 4 2006 IPCC Guidelines and are applied to nationally derived estimates

of land areas. These default factors are very general as the wide error range



15 of 34

shows (± 75%) and are based on Schroeder (1994) literature survey. The LIFE

CLIMATREE Project will provide an update of default factors (possibly also for

below-ground biomass) to be used under Tier 1 estimation through the

experience of the research team and a deeper literature survey focussing of

more recent published researches. In addition, CLIMATREE will make efforts to

extend the availability of default emission factors that discriminate for different

ecoregions currently listed in 2006 IPCC Guidelines (i.e. Tab. 5.2, Chp.5, Vol. 4)

Tier 2 In addition to the Gain-Loss Method (see the abovementioned Eq. 2.7), a

second method called the Stock-Difference Method could be used. This

second method is based on the Eq. 2.8 (Chapter 2, Vol. 4 2006 IPCC

Guidelines) and requires biomass carbon stock inventories for a given land-use

area at two points in time:

ΔCB = annual change in carbon stocks in biomass (the sum of above-

ground and below-ground biomass, tonnes C yr-1

;

Ct2 = total carbon in biomass for each land sub-category at time t2,

tonnes C;

Ct1 = total carbon in biomass for each land sub-category at time t1,

tonnes C;

A Tier 2 estimate, in contrast, will generally develop estimates for the major

woody crop types by climate zones, using where possible or country-specific

estimates of carbon stocks at two points in time. The Tier 2 methods use

country-specific carbon accumulation rates and stock losses for above- and

below-ground biomass incorporating the effect of C accumulation drivers (e.g.

management system). Where data are missing, default data may be used.

Estimating below-ground biomass accumulation is recommended for Tier 2

calculation (IPCC, 2006), however limited data is available for this specific issue

hence empirically-derived root-to-shoot ratios specific to a region or vegetation

type should be used (IPCC, 2006).

The LIFE CLIMATREE Project will deeply search for available data on above-

and below-ground biomass of crop trees as affected by management(s) and

climate to provide a dataset easily/freely accessible.



16 of 34

Tier 3 Adoption of a Tier 3 estimate highly disaggregated factors for biomass

accumulation are needed. These may include categorisation of species,

management effects (e.g. fertilization). Measurement of above-ground biomass,

similar to forest inventory with periodic measurement of above-ground biomass

accumulation, is necessary. General guidance on survey and sampling

techniques for biomass inventories for Tier 3 is given in Chapter 3, Vol. 4, Annex

3A.3 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

The LIFE CLIMATREE Project will propose possible feasible set of field periodic

measurements for above-ground biomass monitoring. Efforts will made to

identify possible indexes able to predict biomass accumulation in tree crops.

4.2. Dead organic matter The dead organic matter (DOM) is a carbon pool that includes litter and dead

wood. The IPCC (2006) (Chapter 1, Vol. 4) defines these pools as:

Dead wood: “Includes all non-living woody biomass not contained in the litter,

either standing, lying on the ground, or in the soil. Dead wood includes wood

lying on the surface, dead roots, and stumps, larger than or equal to 10 cm in

diameter (or the diameter specified by the country)”.

Litter: “Includes all non-living biomass with a size greater than the limit for soil

organic matter (suggested 2 mm) and less than the minimum diameter chosen

for dead wood (e.g. 10 cm), lying dead, in various states of decomposition

above or within the mineral or organic soil. This includes the litter layer as

usually defined in soil typologies. Live fine roots above the mineral or organic

soil (of less than the minimum diameter limit chosen for below-ground biomass)

are included in litter where they cannot be distinguished from it empirically.”

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines reports that cropland will have little or no DOM with

the exception of agroforestry. However, based on literature and own research

experience (see Annex to this report) the LIFE CLIMATREE Project will focus on

the relevance of this carbon pool as affected by certain management practices

(e.g. adoption of cover crops, retain of pruning residuals).

The decision tree reported in Figure 5 provide assistance in the choice of

correct Tier for DOM estimations.



17 of 34

Tier 1 This method assumes that there is no DOM or it is in equilibrium (gain=loss)

hence there is no need to account for it.

Tier 2 and 3 Similarly to the calculation of the biomass carbon pool, two methods could be

adopted for DOM carbon calculations: the Gain-Loss Method (see the Eq. 2.18,

Chapter 2, Vol. 4 2006 IPCC Guidelines), and the Stock-Difference Method

(see the Eq. 2.19, Chapter 2, Vol. 4 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

Gain-Loss Method: should be used in case the management practices consider

annual transfer into and out of dead wood and litter stocks. This method requires

information on the quantity of biomass transferred into dead wood and litter

stocks under i) different climate or cropland types; ii) management regime.

Stock-Difference Method: involves estimating the area of cropland and the dead

wood and litter stocks at two periods of time, t1 and t2. This method is feasible

for countries which have periodic inventories and when adopting Tier 3 methods.

Tier 3 methods are used where countries have country-specific emission factors

and national data gained through permanent sample plots for their croplands

and/or models.

Section 5.2.2.4, Chapter 5, Vol. 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines summarizes

steps for estimating change in DOM carbon stocks.



18 of 34

4.3. Soil carbon Generally, IPCC (2014) recommend to use Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods for reporting

carbon stock changes from mineral soils if CM is a key category and mineral

soils are a significant subcategory under CM.

Tier 1 The default Tier 1 methodology provided by IPCC guidelines (2006) for the

accounting of soil carbon change in the AFOLU sector (Eq. 2.25 Chapter 2, Vol.

4 2006 IPCC Guidelines) is based on the reference carbon stock (SOCref, t C

ha-1

) and on three relative stock change factors: FLU related to land use (long

term cultivated, paddy rice, perennial/tree crop, set aside), FMG related to

management (e.g. tillage regime full, reduced, no-tillage) and FI related to

carbon input level (low, medium, high):

SOC = SOCref × FLU × FMG × FI

The SOCref value should be selected according to soil type (HAC4, LAC

5,

Sandy, Spodic, Volcanic, Wetland) and nine climate regions (boreal, cold

temperate dry, cold temperate moist, warm temperate dry, warm temperate

moist, tropical dry, tropical moist, tropical wet, tropical montane) see Table 3 for

SOCref values and Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 for land-use (perennial crops)

(FLU), management (FMG), input level (FI) stock change factors, respectively.

Applying that equation at two point in time allow to calculate the soil organic

carbon content before change (SOCinitial) and after change (SOCfinal). Then,

the difference between the final stock (new equilibrium, SOCfinal) and the initial

one (old equilibrium, SOCinitial), gives the soil carbon stock change (ΔSOC)

calculated for the 30 cm topsoil, in a time period of 20 years, expressed as tons

of carbon per hectare;

ΔSOC = (SOCfinal – SOCinitial)/T (t C year-1)

Where

T = default time period for transition between equilibrium SOC values, 20 years

At regional and sub-regional level, Tier 1 level methods are not always

sufficiently accurate to account for geographical variability of GHG emissions

caused by different soil, climate or management practices. In fact the qualitative

4 HCA, High Activity Clay.

5LCA, Low Activity Clay.



19 of 34

stock change factors are characterized by wide error ranges (between ±5% and

±50%) and is often difficult to select the right factors based on the qualitative

description provided in IPCC guidelines (2006).

Thus, according to IPCC (2014), an affordable higher Tier methodology is

proposed, based on the use of easy implementable models for carbon turnover

in soil, as Roth C (Coleman, 1999) or Century (Parton, 1992), integrated with the

2010 baseline of organic carbon stock in European agricultural soils provided by

the EU Joint Research Center (Lugato, 2014), and validated against

measurements. This more accurate methodology requires as input data the soil

texture, monthly climate data (temperatures, rainfall and evapotranspiration) and

the estimate of the amount of carbon input to soil. These data are often available

to local and regional authorities so that the proposed methodology can be

considered of “medium effort” against the Tier, which is “low effort”, but does not

ensure a good accuracy of results.

Data regarding the amount of organic material added to soil at landscape level

could be retrieved through statistical surveys of tree crop management

practices, integrated with literature data and sampling activity about crop

residues amounts, for each crop species and each climate region. The

simulations performed to include SOC change from tree crop management

modifications into National GHG accounting, should be verified against

systematic SOC measurement performed every 5 years, for each “Soil Climate

Unit”, which is the land unit defined in Lugato (2014); these measurements

would be useful to update regularly the EU SOC map for agricultural soils.

Tier 2 Application of a Tier 2 A Tier 2 approach requires country-specific values of

stock change factors and SOCref. According to IPCC (2006), derivation of input

(FI) and management factors (FMG) should be based on comparisons to medium

input and intensive tillage, respectively. For the implementation of a Tier 2

method for soil carbon changes estimation, a higher resolution classification of

management, climate and soil types among more disaggregated sub-categories

are required.

Tier 3 A Tier 3 approach should provide a more detailed estimation of

emissions/removals, hence a variable rates of carbon stock change that more

accurately capture land-use and management effects is desirable.



20 of 34

5. Conclusions

The present report has provided the current stepwise methodology for

measuring of emissions/removals of GHG focussing the Cropland category

which includes perennial tree crops. In several places the document provide a

preliminary identification of possible improvements/adjustments of current

methodology with the aim to shed the light on potential of tree crops category to

serve as carbon sink.

Thus, according to IPCC (2014), an affordable higher Tier methodology is

proposed for the estimation of SOC changes, based on the use of easy

implementable models for carbon turnover in soil. This more accurate

methodology requires as input data the soil texture, monthly climate data

(temperatures, rainfall and evapotranspiration) and the estimate of the amount

of carbon input to soil which are often available to local and regional authorities.

It could be anticipated that this proposed methodology can be considered of

“medium effort” against the Tier, which is “low effort”, but does not ensure a

good accuracy of results.

Annexed to the report a summary (now under revision stage of the publication

process) of a manuscript titled “Carbon budget in a Mediterranean peach

orchard under different management practices” The manuscript provides

annual data on gain-loss carbon fluxes along with data on carbon sequestration

in above- below-ground biomass during orchard lifetime. This paper would be a

supporting document showing the potential of tree crops to serve as carbon

sink.



21 of 34

6. References

IPCC, 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,

Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme,

Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds).

Published: IGES, Japan. - ISBN 4-88788-032-4.

IPCC, 2014. 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice

Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol, Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Tanabe,

K., Srivastava, N., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M. and Troxler, T.G. (eds)

Published: IPCC, Switzerland. ISBN 978-92-9169-140-1.

Lugato E. et al., 2014. Global Change Biology, 20: 313–26.

Coleman K, and Jenkinson DS. 1999. A Model for the Turnover of Carbon in

Soil: Model description and User's Guide. Lawes Agricultural Trust,

Harpenden, UK.

Parton W.J. et al., 1992. CENTURY Users’ Manual. Colorado State University,

NREL Publication, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

EEA, 2015. Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2013 and

inventory report 2015. Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat Technical

report No 19/2015.

Zanotelli, D., Montagnani, L., Manca, G., Scandellari, F., Tagliavini, M., 2014.

Net ecosystem carbon balance of an apple orchard. Europ. J. Agronomy

63, 97-104, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2014.12.002.

Montanaro, G., Dichio, B., Briccoli Bati, C., Xiloyannis, C., 2012. Soil

management affects carbon dynamics and yield in a Mediterranean peach

orchard. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 161, 46-54, DOI:

10.1016/j.agee.2012.07.020.

Huffman, T., Liu, J., McGovern, M., McConkey, B., Martin, T., 2015. Carbon

stock and change from woody biomass on Canada’s cropland between

1990 and 2000. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 205, 102–111.

Arets, E.J.M.M., Hengeveld, G.M., Lesschen, J.P., Kramer, H., Kuikman, P.J.,

van der Kolk, J.W.H., 2014. Greenhouse gas reporting of the LULUCF

sector for the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. WOt-technical report 26,

ISSN 2352-2739.

Goglio, P., Smith, W.N., Grant, B.B., Desjardins, R.L., McConkey, B.G.,

Campbell, C.A., Nemecek, T., 2015. Accounting for soil carbon changes

in agricultural life cycle assessment (LCA): a review. J. Cleaner Prod.

104, 23-39.

PAS 2050, 2008. Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse

gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards (BSI), Available

online at:

http://www.bsigroup.com/upload/Standards%20&%20Publications/Energy

/PAS2050pdf.



22 of 34

EC, 2013. Decision No 529/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the

Council on accounting rules on greenhouse gas emissions and removals

resulting from activities relating to land use, land-use change and forestry

and on information concerning actions relating to those activities. Official

J. European Union, 165, 80-97.

Weiss P, Freibauer A, Gensior A, Hart K, Korder N, Moosmann L, Schmid C,

Schwaiger E, Schwarzl B (2015), Guidance on reporting and accounting

for cropland and grassland management in accordance with Article 3(2) of

EU Decision 529/2013/EU, Task 3 of a study for DG Climate Action:

‘LULUCF implementation guidelines and policy options’, Contract No

CLIMA.A2/2013/AF3338, Institute for European Environmental Policy,

London.



23 of 34

7. Annex

“Carbon budget in a Mediterranean peach orchard under different

management practices”6 developed within LIFE14 CLIMATREE.

Abstract

Soil organic carbon (SOC) contents in many Mediterranean soils is rather low (1%)

hampering both economic and ecological functions. Environmental conditions of the

Mediterranean area (i.e. low annual precipitation, warm and dry summer) as combined

with agricultural management options may have specific impact on the carbon (C)

cycle. To improve knowledge of C fluxes in Mediterranean agro-ecosystems this paper

examined the effect of 7-year of sustainable management practices (Smng) (no-till, weed

mowing, retention of aboveground residues, import of organic amendment) on soil and

biome C budget against locally conventional managed orchard (Cmng) (tillage, removal

of pruning residuals, mineral fertilisers). Through field measurements of soil respiration

(Li-6400, LI-COR, USA) and above- and belowground biomass sampling the annual net

ecosystem production (NEP) was determined. The mean annual NEP was close 474 and

320 g C m-2

yr-1

at the Smng and Cmng plot, respectively. As managed ecosystems,

anthropogenic C imports/exports and related changes of soil C pool were then

accounted through the net ecosystem C balance (NECB). The NECB approximated 730 g

C m-2

yr-1

(Smng) and 90 g C m-2

yr-1

(Cmng) highlighting the role of appropriate

management of the variable components (e.g. pruning residuals, supply of external

organic material, adoption of cover crops) to sustain ecosystem resilience. During the

studied period soil C stock (SOC and litter) increased at a mean rate of 156 g C m-2

yr-1

at the Smng plot while it was 4 g C m-2

yr-1

. Through excavations of trees it was measured

the C sequestered in whole tree standing biomass during the orchard lifespan that was

close to 25 t C ha-1

. This paper provides information on C stocks variation (soil + biome)

and on annual net C removal (NEP) in cultivated peach orchard under Mediterranean

environmental conditions, identifying potential issues able to strength C capture

capability and in turn support new environmental policy release.

Key words: Carbon balance, standing biomass, carbon sequestration, prunus, NECB,

sustainable, conventional, soil respiration

6 As it is under revision at the deliverable deadline, only the abstract is annexed. As

soon as the manuscript will be accepted for publication the deliverable will be

integrated.



24 of 34

8. List of tables and figures

Tables

Table 1 - Three land-identification Approaches and relations between

Approaches and Reporting Methods proposed by IPCC (2014). (Redrawn from

Chapter 2, Vol. 4)

Table 2 – Coefficients for woody biomass accumulated in cropland including tree

crops. (redrawn from Chapter 5, Vol. 4 2006 IPCC Guidelines).



25 of 34

Table 3 – Values of default soil organic C stock (SOCref) for mineral soil in the

top 30 cm soil layer. (Redrawn from Chapter 5, Vol. 4 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

.

Table 4 - Land-use factor for perennial tree crops to be used in Tier 1

calculations for SOC change determinations (redrawn from Chapter 5, Vol. 4

2006 IPCC Guidelines).



26 of 34

Table 5 – Management factor in relation to temperature regime to be used in

Tier 1 calculations for SOC change determinations (redrawn from Chapter 5,

Vol. 4 2006 IPCC Guidelines).



27 of 34

Table 6 - Input factor in relation to temperature and moisture regime to be used

in Tier 1 calculations for SOC change determinations (redrawn from Chapter 5,

Vol. 4 2006 IPCC Guidelines).



28 of 34

Figures

Figure 1 – Trend of the EU GHG net emissions in CO2 eq. (kt) (+) / removals (-)

for 1990–2013, within the LULUCF sector for all land use categories. (redrawn

from EEA, 2015 Fig 6.17).

Figure 2 – Schematic representation of the three Tiers for determination of

emissions/removals of GHG within the IPCC accounting GHG framework IPCC

framework.



29 of 34

Figure 3 - Decision tree for selecting the appropriate tier for estimating

emissions and removals in the carbon pools under CM for KP reporting; * a

better estimate improves consistency, comparability, completeness, accuracy

and transparency (redrawn from Chapter 2, 2013 Revised Supplementary

Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol).



30 of 34

Figure 4 – Decision tree for estimation of carbon changes in biomass. Redrawn

from Chapter 2, Vol. 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines.



31 of 34

Figure 5- Redrawn from Fig. 2.3, Chapter 2, Vol. 4 2006 IPCC Guidelines.



32 of 34

Figure 6- Decision tree for identification of appropriate Tier to estimate carbon

stock changes in mineral soils (redrawn from Chapter 2, Vol. 4 2006 IPCC

Guidelines).



33 of 34

The LIFE CLIMATREE project “A novel approach for accounting and monitoring

carbon sequestration of tree crops and their potential as carbon sink areas”

(LIFE14 CCM/GR/000635) is co-funded by the EU Environmental Funding

Programme LIFE Climate Change Mitigation.

Implementation period: 16.7.2015 until 28.6.2019

Project budget: Total budget:

1,931,447 €

EU financial contribution:

1,158,868 €

Participating Beneficiaries:

Deliverable Action A2

Documents

Transcript of Deliverable Action A2